The one immediately above is where you specifically defend your notion.

So, all of those times you could have said "I never said that", you instead defend it... until now.

And you just happen to have posted a version of your paper up that may or may not contain (I don't know because I've been denied access).

Whatever.

How did I know you would be another creep who quote-mines the thread in order to make it appear that is what I claimed in the theory/paper?

You said:

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,19:48)

This is not what you claim in your "paper". You specifically state that bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome.

Interesting, you appear to have changed your document and it no longer contains that phrase. Have you changed your mind then?

Instead of quoting from a "paper" the best you could do is quote yourself making the same accusation, and link to things I said that have nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

The first url says:

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2012,21:41)

Here's a funny story Gary.

Shockingly, I don't have a Ph.D. in anything. I'm a 'self-learner', but the difference between you and I is that I actually learn something about what I choose to talk about on the internet where everyone can read what I write.

Did you know that 'self-learners' can publish in peer-reviewed journals? I'm still deciding if it's worth the effort it would take for me to write up the article I want to do. You see, unlike you, I'd have to look up several hundred references and include them with the article. You know, all those references that provide support to the things I would say in my article... oh wait, no, you must not know that.

BTW: Are you ever going to answer any of the questions I specifically asked about your specific article.

1) Do you understand that you are fundamentally mistaken about natural selection?2) Do you have any support for an embryo modifying its genome after fertilization?3) Do you have any support for any organism consciously choosing to modify its genome at any point in time?4) Do you know how to develop a graph that meets the minimum requirements of 3rd grade school children?5) There was some more, but that's all I remember and it's not worth the effort to look up, because we both know you won't acknowledge these questions... much less answer them.

The second quotes me as saying:

"I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with."

Third quotes me as saying:

"It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat."

The fifth url links to the top of page 14.

At least you did a fine job of proving that you are just another one of the parasites on a feeding-frenzy to bleed science to death.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If the mutations leading to a new abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external), I would think that would imply that immediately useful mutations would be a very high proportion of the total number of mutations that occurred in the relevant population during the time period in question.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

If the mutations leading to a new abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external), I would think that would imply that immediately useful mutations would be a very high proportion of the total number of mutations that occurred in the relevant population during the time period in question.

That looks to me like a testable prediction.

Henry

It's the same way your brain learns, unless of course you believe that all of your abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external).

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If the mutations leading to a new abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external), I would think that would imply that immediately useful mutations would be a very high proportion of the total number of mutations that occurred in the relevant population during the time period in question.

That looks to me like a testable prediction.

Henry

It's the same way your brain learns

no, the fuck, it is not.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If the mutations leading to a new abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external), I would think that would imply that immediately useful mutations would be a very high proportion of the total number of mutations that occurred in the relevant population during the time period in question.

That looks to me like a testable prediction.

Henry

It's the same way your brain learns

no, the fuck, it is not.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred. And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I think the evidence points in the favor of that phrase being in the original document I read. You have no idea what evidence is, so it really doesn't matter.

For example, you think evidence is a graph of meaningless gibberish.

Please, define evidence and give two examples.

Grow up..

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

what do you mean by "statistically random"?

I bet five Tardaloons we have a random = equiprobable fail.

Google it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

what do you mean by "statistically random"?

I bet five Tardaloons we have a random = equiprobable fail.

Google it.

FUCK OFF YOU BLUFFER. What do *You* mean. You've got some nerve acusing others of dishonesty.

All you need is the title and maybe abstract of the paper so you can boast about how wonderful the theory you follow is, while I need to know the exact mechanism including any sensory systems that may be involved.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It's the same way your brain learns, unless of course you believe that all of your abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external).

No. Changes to the gene pool are a result of things like various types of mutations, recombination, and a few rarer mechanisms.

In a neural network, the basic component is changes to the connections between neurons (nodes in the network). Both are random, but the similarity ends there.

Note that random does not mean that all possible results have the same probability. In the case of mutations, the relative probabilities are caused by the chemical properties of the DNA and the other molecules with which it reacts.

If mutations weren't random with respect to reproductive success a significant proportion of the time, that would produce a detectable pattern, i.e., a larger fraction of useful mutations and a smaller fraction of detrimental ones.

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

But variation is real. Thus, any theory that wants to model reality has to regard it. Even if we wouldn't know the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic variation we could still measure it. This was even possible before the identification of DNA. You may want to look up G. Mendel.

In addition, who if not you should be blamed for generalisation. You had one idea or rather one single wrongful thought in your life you are now applying to any phenomenon you encounter.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

The phrase "random variation" (not the single word "variation") is from another paradigm which implies that all variations are statistically random, which is not true.

Guess why I have asked you about the fluctuation test weeks ago. Just google it. Or look up Dellbrück and Luria.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred. And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

You don't need to do your own research. Thinking would suffice. Your theory imply that a bacterium that doesn't contain a nylonase gene somehow senses nylon - otherwise how would it be capable of making an intelligent decision. Thus, you have to assume at least a second molecule that recognizes nylon. Alternatively you would have to assume that the product of the to be nylonase gene senses nylon and then gives some feed back to its coding sequence that induces its a nucleotide change. Nothing like that has ever been observed. And you betterlookup somatic hypermutation before you mention it again.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

It's the same way your brain learns, unless of course you believe that all of your abilities were deliberately put there by an intelligence of some sort (whether internal or external).

No. Changes to the gene pool are a result of things like various types of mutations, recombination, and a few rarer mechanisms.

In a neural network, the basic component is changes to the connections between neurons (nodes in the network). Both are random, but the similarity ends there.

Note that random does not mean that all possible results have the same probability. In the case of mutations, the relative probabilities are caused by the chemical properties of the DNA and the other molecules with which it reacts.

If mutations weren't random with respect to reproductive success a significant proportion of the time, that would produce a detectable pattern, i.e., a larger fraction of useful mutations and a smaller fraction of detrimental ones.

Henry

I posted the Intelligent Causation illustration to show what I am saying about it being systematically "the same way your brain learns".

It also sounds like you are saying that somatic hypermutation is a totally random event with a normal mutation rate like any other cell. Either that or you are suggesting that I am talking about tiny supernatural gene fairies or something equally weird.

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new nylonase diet.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred. And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

You don't need to do your own research. Thinking would suffice. Your theory imply that a bacterium that doesn't contain a nylonase gene somehow senses nylon - otherwise how would it be capable of making an intelligent decision. Thus, you have to assume at least a second molecule that recognizes nylon. Alternatively you would have to assume that the product of the to be nylonase gene senses nylon and then gives some feed back to its coding sequence that induces its a nucleotide change. Nothing like that has ever been observed. And you betterlookup somatic hypermutation before you mention it again.

It could also be caused by a major case of indigestion caused by eating what it cannot digest, because of that being almost all it has for food. Stress like this is known to produce genetic changes.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred. And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

You don't need to do your own research. Thinking would suffice. Your theory imply that a bacterium that doesn't contain a nylonase gene somehow senses nylon - otherwise how would it be capable of making an intelligent decision. Thus, you have to assume at least a second molecule that recognizes nylon. Alternatively you would have to assume that the product of the to be nylonase gene senses nylon and then gives some feed back to its coding sequence that induces its a nucleotide change. Nothing like that has ever been observed. And you betterlookup somatic hypermutation before you mention it again.

It could also be caused by a major case of indigestion caused by eating what it cannot digest, because of that being almost all it has for food. Stress like this is known to produce genetic changes.

What do you mean by ingestion? Endocytosis? Pinocytosis? Receptor mediated uptake?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Somatic hypermutation (or SHM) is a cellular mechanism by which the immune system adapts to the new foreign elements that confront it (for example, microbes). A major component of the process of affinity maturation, SHM diversifies B cell receptors used to recognize foreign elements (antigens) and allows the immune system to adapt its response to new threats during the lifetime of an organism.[1] Somatic hypermutation involves a programmed process of mutation affecting the variable regions of immunoglobulin genes. Unlike germline mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring.[2]Mistargeted somatic hypermutation is a likely mechanism in the development of B-cell lymphomas.[3]

Targeting

When a B cell recognizes an antigen, it is stimulated to divide (or proliferate). During proliferation, the B cell receptor locus undergoes an extremely high rate of somatic mutation that is at least 10^5 - 10^6 fold greater than the normal rate of mutation across the genome.[2] Variation is mainly in the form of single base substitutions, with insertions and deletions being less common. These mutations occur mostly at “hotspots” in the DNA, known as hypervariable regions. These regions correspond to the complementarity determining regions; the sites involved in antigen recognition on the immunoglobulin.[4] The exact nature of this targeting is poorly understood, although is thought to be controlled by a balance of error-prone and high fidelity repair.[5] This directed hypermutation allows for the selection of B cells that express immunoglobulin receptors possessing an enhanced ability to recognize and bind a specific foreign antigen.[1]

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Are you saying that bacteria self-modify? It really seems like this is what you are saying? Is it? Bacteria modify their own genes? Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links.

As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true.

So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?*

Quote

The cellular intelligence of a bacterium no more chooses to modify their genes than you choose to digest your food after eating. It just happens.

So I'll take that as a "No, bacteria do not choose to modify their genes."

Why then do you use the active voice, as in "Bacteria can (self-)modify their genes."? If it's not a choice, why introduce "intelligence"?

Quote

At the molecular intelligence level of a bacterium (a genome) it is the same as saying that a somatic cell can choose to modify their genes through somatic hypermutation.

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)

That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success?

Since "deliberated" can be used as a loaded word indicating "God did it" you will have to rephrase the question before I can answer that.

By the bacterium. What else?

Quote

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)

Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm?

The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why.

Imperfect replication, leading to differential survival rates. Nature is sloppy (which is, I think, what really sticks your craw). "Random" in this sense is only in respect to survival advantage, not "equally likely in all alleles and at all points on the chromosome".

If you disagree, if you think variation is somehow guided, or a strategic reaction to increase survival advantage in a changed environment, how do you think variation happens? Be specific. How would we test this notion?

How did the presence of nylon generate nylonase-producing bacteria? How did the presence of malaria generate the sickle-cell mutation? Be specific.

What about all the "bad" mutations, like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or Tay-Sachs, or Down's Syndrome? Where's the "intelligence" in those?

Thank you.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

BTW, you didn't reply to my question how bacteria that don't possess a nylonase gene sense nylon in thir environment.

And on that question: Considering how the prevailing paradigm assumes it was "just random" it's another void in scientific knowledge caused by sloppy science that does not bother to look for how the change occurred. And I sure cannot afford to fund my own research that was to redo all the incomplete/misleading experiments that have been published.

You don't need to do your own research. Thinking would suffice. Your theory imply that a bacterium that doesn't contain a nylonase gene somehow senses nylon - otherwise how would it be capable of making an intelligent decision. Thus, you have to assume at least a second molecule that recognizes nylon. Alternatively you would have to assume that the product of the to be nylonase gene senses nylon and then gives some feed back to its coding sequence that induces its a nucleotide change. Nothing like that has ever been observed. And you betterlookup somatic hypermutation before you mention it again.

It could also be caused by a major case of indigestion caused by eating what it cannot digest, because of that being almost all it has for food. Stress like this is known to produce genetic changes.

What do you mean by ingestion? Endocytosis? Pinocytosis? Receptor mediated uptake?

Indigestion is the inability to properly digest what is being consuming. Like an antibiotic, the nylon then has to be broken down into non-toxic compounds, or it perishes.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Why then do you use the active voice, as in "Bacteria can (self-)modify their genes."? If it's not a choice, why introduce "intelligence"?

It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.

And I introduced "intelligence" because it is there. That is why animals as complex as humans now exist. If there is no genetic ability to "self-learn" then humans could not exist.

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,00:21)

Nature is sloppy (which is, I think, what really sticks your craw).

What really sticks my craw are condescending noodle-heads who think they know-it-all. The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations that make me wonder if I'm talking to children.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What really sticks my craw are condescending noodle-heads who think they know-it-all. The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations that make me wonder if I'm talking to children.